*TTT - Overall Impressions

[Hawkeye]

Oh, rats! Well, it's only 9:36 here. I forgot about the time difference!

[Shadowstrife911]

Note: This is a review of ‘The Two Towers’ as a movie and not its difference between movie/book and how discrepancies screwed it up. (I’m not saying it did or didn’t)<P>I’d say that overall ‘The Two Towers’ was a good movie but it didn’t leave me in awe as the first movie did. For me the major problem was the strange pace in the scenes that the editors laid out for us. Scenes end at odd points without much resolution, they just end quickly and skip to another P.O.V. too hastily. The dialogue also wasn’t very fluent, sometimes they would speak in older English and sometimes they would use Modern English, you could tell when they made up lines even if you didn’t read the book. Character development seemed to be scrapped in order to make way for jokes & more action, which is obviously because this is the theatrical release and they have to please the general audience. I’m sure when they release a special edition DVD with extended footage the editing, strange dialogue and character development issues will be corrected but for now I’m reviewing the theatrical release. <P> Another strange thing I found was Eomer. I can’t remember correctly (and have only seen TTT once) but didn’t Grima imprison Eomer (in this movie) and then suddenly he is running around with an army of 2,000 men? I’m not sure exactly what happened but I saw the movie with some friends of mine (who have never read the book) and they were wondering why the army hadn’t come sooner. The lost Rohirrim army plot hole I expect will be fixed by the extended DVD.<P> Gandalf was also missing for too long and I don’t think this was a good decision when you’re making a movie and a three-part movie at that. When you have a character on-screen for long periods of time in the 1st movie, then missing for most of the time is the second and then expects him to re-appear in the third, you have a major problem. This is a movie and not a book and people have to see things happen.<P>My last main disappointment was the ending, because there wasn’t really one. Basically we see a dozen or so soldiers left at Helms Deep and then they make a final charge, a la “the charge of the light brigade” and then Gandalf & Eomer come and save the day. The climax of the movie occurs so near the end that there is no resolution besides a rather hurried one. Saruman is the main antagonist in this movie and they don’t go back to him in the end. This movie needed the scene where Gandalf confront Saruman. I don’t understand why they took it out completely or move it. You can’t set him up as the main bad guy sending out Orcs & wild men to slaughter the Rohirrim and not even confront him in the ending, that’s not how movies work. Movies must have closure; you can’t end on a total cliffhanger.<P>Anyway these are my complaints, it’s not that big  but I still give the movie an 8 / 10 because it was good but if these things were fixed then it would get a 10 / 10 . For me these things spoiled the mood a bit as they jumped strangely from scene to scene and ended the movie without real resolution.<P> P.S.: If you look closely you’ll see that I’m not complaining about discrepancies with the book because this isn’t a book it’s a movie. I’d say these are all valid points of criticism towards the movie; Questionable editing, Strange combination of dialogue, Lack of character development and a hasty climax that doesn’t end up confronting the primary antagonist.<P> P.P.S.: I just realised that if they made the end a confrontation between Saruman/Gandalf at Orthnac then it would solve two problems; the lack of Ian’s screens time and the absence of closure.

[Hawkeye]

Shadowstrife911: Just wanted to clear up the point about Eomer for you. Grima got Theoden to banish Eomer in the movie, but he wasn't actually imprisoned. I agree with your post, by the way. Those things would have made it much better!

[The Necromancer]

Hello, everyone! Just saw TTT this afternoon and I'm back now to add my most definitive review!!! First of all, I need to say just how much I had looked forward to this movie! During like all my spare time (or boring moments during school!) I thought and day-dreamed about Lotr, TTT, Lotr, TTT, Lo..well you get the point! And I was not at all disappointed when I finally did see the movie! Regardless of how much it deviated from the book (and it sure did!) it was just so good to see all the characters again (especially Frodo, my favorite after a whole year! At the very beginning, the feel and atmosphere of TTT was so different from FOTR, it took me awhile to get into the movie, but once I did, I didn't want it ever to end! But of course, it wasn't perfect and I'll list things I found fault with first and then the things I liked so I can end on a positive note!<BR>First of all, the scenes with Aragorn and Arwen, though very touching and romantic and not improper like I was afraid they'd be from some of the previews I'd seen, left me confused. I know they were flash backs, but I was wondering where they were, and when. The scene where Arwen sees into the future to Aragorn's death really confused me. He had aged and looked old but she looked exactly the same and I was left wondering why she hadn't aged with him because did she not give up her immortality? I never did understand that in the books and was hoping the movies would clear that up for me, I don't know...that was really sad when she was walking through the trees all alone, wasn't it? And when did he give her back her necklace??? When we last saw them in FOTR, she had just given it to him on the bridge...OK, I'm really confused now...I'll move on...<BR>A second thing I find fault with was King Theoden. He just annoyed me for some reason, sorry I can't really say why; I thought after Gandalf released him from Saruman's spell (wasn't that a really cool scene?!?!?) he would be, I don't know, spry and nicer and more assertive, but he was just kind of grouchy. <BR>A third thing I didn't was that some of the scenes didn't seem to fit together. It was like they had cut too much. Like Faramir (who was so different from the book Faramir they might as well have given him a different name and skipped F. altogether, but I won't get into that!) how would he have known that Boromir was dead? In the book, he sees the funeral boat in a dream or something, but in the movie, I felt they needed to explain that more. In fact, before I went to see TTT, I cheated. I bought a photo guide of it..forgive me...and I counted at least 2 scenes they showed in the book that were not in the movie. One was a picture of Gollum when he was Smeagol and looked like a hobbit. It said in the book that as they journey to Mordor, he tells Frodo and Sam how he stole the ring from his cousin and there's a picture of them fishing together, and there was nothing like that in the movie! Another was that Faramir supposedly leads Frodo and Sam to the sewers so they could pass under the orc sentries unnoticed (which I was glad was not in the movie because then people who had not read the books might think that Tolkien maybe kind of copied off Les Miserables). So does anyone know where those scenes went to??? <BR>And lastly, when Legolas and Gimli think Aragorn is dead and he comes to Helm's Deep and Legolas, instead of crying "Aragorn! You aren't dead! I'm so glad! (OK, now I know THAT would have sounded really stupid, but I'm not a script writer!) he says "You're late." That made me mad. It just seemed so trite and unemotional. Anyone else agree?<BR>Now to the things I thought were really good!!! The Dead Marches were so cool! They were actually even scarier than I had imagined, I was holding my breath when Frodo fell underwater and the dead people were after him! And Gollum was really good and sort of like the book Gollum. It's amazing what you can do with computers now, isn't it? My sister, who is interested in Psychology, loved his split personalities, the good Smeagol and the evil Gollum arguing with each other!!! The scenes where Legolas slides down the stairs on the shield firing arrows, jumps up on the galloping horse, etc. were really cool!!! But the part where the orc is running with the torch to set off the bombs and Aragorn yells to Legolas to shoot him, does Legolas actually for once miss? I had dropped some popcorn or something and looked away from the screen for just a second and then there was the orc still running with the torch and setting them off, so could someone tell me what happened? (If anyone's read this far, that is, this is getting too long, I know!) And I really liked the wolf creatures the orcs rode; that was an exciting battle scene. My very favorite part and I have no idea why it is, was where Frodo, Sam and Gollum are at the black gate to Mordor and the rock Sam stands on falls and he gets caught in the rock slide and slides down the hill with it and Frodo comes after to rescue him and they almost get caught by the creepy looking guards. I loved that part!!! And finally, the beginning, with Gandalf falling down the chasm or whatever you'd call it in Moria with the balrog and it turning out to be Frodo's dream was such a cool and unexpected beginning. There! That's my review! I'm really kind of surprised more of us Tolkien fans didn't like this movie; I loved it! But I try to enjoy the movie and the books seperately so all the character changes don't bother me so much. Oh! One more thing I liked, or rather that reassured me: Shelob is going to be in ROTK! She isn't going to be left out afterall! ( I liked how evil and nasty Gollum sounded when he said "She might do it!") I would have DIED if that spider had been left out! So with all the things plus Shelob that have to happen in ROTK, it's going to be one exciting movie! But in the meantime, I can't wait to go see TTT again!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for reading my review!!!

ｏｖｅｒ　ａｌｌ　ｉ　ｔｈｏｕｇｈｔ　ｉｔ　&#65 367;ａｓ　ｐｒｅｔｔｙ　ｇｏｏｄ，　ｉ　ｍｅａｎ 　ｌｏｇｏｌａｓ　ａｎｄ　ａｌｌ　ｔｈａｔ，&#12 288;ｂｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｌａｃｋ　ｏｆ　ｓｐｉｄｅｒ ｓ　ｄｉｓｓａｐｏｉｎｔｅｄ　ｍｅ：）

[Aelfwine]

calendilion, I can't see your post. Are you using a different font or something? This one works fine for me

[TolkienGurl]

To The Necromancer:<P>I totally understand your confusion with the fact that Arwen didn't age in the flash-forward scene. I agree that she should have.<P>First, Elrond told Aragorn "I will not leave my daughter here to die," and then he tells Arwen that after Aragorn passes, she will go on living and not find rest (I can't remember what exactly was said). Here is a big contradiction! It sounds like he is telling Arwen that since she is immortal, she will never be happy staying with Aragorn because he will die but she won't. That is not true. She has the choice of becoming full human or full elf just as her father and her brothers do.<P>And why were the elves leaving for Valinor so early? It was just plopped right in the middle of TTT when it should have been saved for the end of RotK. Was it for drama reasons? I think so, but the reasoning for this "intrusion of the elves" is faulty.

[The Necromancer]

To TolkienGurl: <P>Thanks for writing back and I'm glad you agree with me! When I first saw that flash forward scene, I thought maybe Arwen had really aged like Aragorn, but being an elf, she got to keep her "outside immortality" (her young appearance), but then of course Elrond had to say that she'll go on living, like you pointed out so that made it sound like she can't give up her immortality and I'm making no sense at all here!!!! <P>About the elves leaving for Valinor in TTT, probably just for there for the drama of it. I actually kind of liked how it seemed that Arwen really was leaving Middle Earth (hope she doesn't! But then if she does have to go on living alone forever in Middle Earth away from the other elves after A. dies, in that case I hope she does!), but then if Aragorn had that conversation with Elrond about "Arwen's time is ending. Let her go." before the fellowship left Rivendell, I would have thought that in the first movie, Aragorn would have looked more sad when they were first setting off but he doesn't till now. <P>But I hate criticising the movie like this, because I really did enjoy it! But I'm wondering if maybe the TTT I went and saw was somehow a shortened matinee (sp?) version. Because there was sure a lot of stupid, violent previews before it and when I looked at my watch, TTT still hadn't started until about 12:15 (it was supposed to start right at 12:00)but was still over by 3:00 and I know it was supposed to be 3 hours long, so did they haphazardly cut 15 minutes of scenes from it or what? For example, the part where Aragorn gets washed ashore after falling in the water with the wolf thing and that brown horse comes and wakes him up and he right away says "Brego!" (the horse's name) But you never even saw him with that horse before so how could he have even known its' name and why should it have been so loyal to him??!?! In the photo guide to TTT I bought before seeing the movie, Brego was the king's son's horse who had died and there was a picture of Aragorn with a caption saying "This horse has seen too much of war. Turn him loose." (or something like that!) But that wasn't in the movie!!! Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[TolkienGurl]

Oh, I've seen plenty of things in the "Movie Guide" that were not in the movie! Like the Smeagol/Deagol confrontation, Eowyn practically covered in blood with a sword (not her own!), etc.<P>As for the Aragorn/Arwen thing, read The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A of RotK and maybe you'll understand like I do now after reading it last night. It explains stuff that Elrond said in the movie.

[Purple Elf]

I liked the movie and could overlook most of the changes, elves at helms deep etc, as it is just a film we still have the books right! but i couldnt take the faramir thang that was just too far! where did he go he turned into Boromir and look what happened 2 him! I liked the way that PJ included the Arwen-Aragorn story from the appendix though it would help the people who have only cn the movie and not read the books, as i when i read them the 1st time i got very frustrated and confused about why aragon was turning down the lovely Eowyn! I just didnt get it and neither would other LotR virgins.

[Ithaeliel]

My overall impression was that TTT was great, but FotR was <I>better</I>. I don't know, maybe it's the fact that the latter has a lighter theme overall (and displays more of the majesty and intrigue of Middle-earth), but I found that I thoroughly enjoyed the Fellowship of the Ring, while The Two Towers was a bit iffy. There were some parts that were too long and should have been shorter and vice-versa. I did not like Faramir's part in the movie; they made him seem almost as bad as his brother, for in the book it didn't take a long spiel from Sam to convince the man to let him and Frodo go. Gollum was very good; that's the best CGI I've ever seen, and it was the first time I've ever pitied the creature (now I'll be sad when he falls into Mount Doom!). Arwen's part totally contradicts her heroism in the Fellowship of the Ring, showing her softer side (and that's how it ought to be!) and the struggle that tears her between her father and Aragorn. Helms Deep was very nicely done, as were the Ents. I agree with the Necromancer that Theoden did seem kind of grouchy, but then... his son <I>had</I> just died .<P>I also agree with Shadowstrife911, the climax was quite rushed, and I would have definitely liked to see the confrontation between Mithrandir and Saruman. They cut off a lot of the ending. If not the confrontation, I would have liked to see the captains and the Rohirrim meeting Treebeard and the Ents... that would have been a GREAT ending. Yet the movie was good. I'm looking forward to RotK. <P>Ithaeliel<p>[ December 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ithaeliel ]

[Bill Ferny]

Willie,<P>First of all I did say it was totally justifiable to hate the movie based on the fact that it was not faithful to the books. What I’m driving at is that sometimes you have to look a little closer to see that in many ways the omissions, additions, and mistakes were not necessarily contrary to the spirit of Tolkien. Looking above you see a brief discussion of the Arwen aging thing and Arwen/Elrond exchange, and Tolkiengurl, rather fairly, investigating the appendix to RotK and finding that PJ was right in line with Tolkien on the issue. Looking at the thread on Faramir, there are a number of interpretations that demonstrate that PJ was trying to drive home a point that Tolkien made in a different way.<P>I don't think it fair to assume that PJ made the movies with Tolkien fans in mind. He says himself that the first time he read the books he thought it would make a good movie, not that "so many people liked the books, maybe I should make it into a movie." The first motivation for Mr. Jackson came from his own personal reading of the book, his awe at a good story, not intpretations, theories or any other such Tolkienology from a forum like the BD. In the end, I would rather someone make a movie about LotR based on their own love of the work, and not a kowtowing to fans.

[Arwen Imladris]

TTT was great! It did not follow the books, but that is O.K. as it was ment to be based on the books, not a copy of them. My big things are the surfer elf, Aragorn "dieing", the way Aragorn seemed to encourage Eowyn a bit and that Faramir was soo mean.<P>I really liked most of it though, even though it was not the same as the books, PJ et all did a great job of getting the feel of ME across. I especially liked all of Gimli's lines: Toss me, don't tell the elf. Over all, it was a great movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hmm ... difficult, but I'll try anyway.<P>As a film, I thought it was amazing. Absolutely stunning visualisation - the camerawork, the locations, the costumes, the overall 'look of it'. And excellent (on the whole) acting, Sean Astin in particular.<P>Well-paced, great action (those battle scenes) and, of course, out of this world special effects.<P>So, that's my view as a filmgoer. But, as a Tolkien fan, I couldn't help initially having reservations over the discrepancies. And I think it is valid to talk about them, when describing my thoughts on the film, because they affected my viewing of it. So, in the Ent scenes, I found myself thinking: "Hurry up, you'll never have time to get all the Huorns together and make it to Helms Deep in time to save the day". And "Elves? At Helms Deep? Surely not" (although it is a good way of conveying the elves' involvement in the War of the Ring since there is no reference to the assaults on Lorien). And, in the Faramir scenes, just when I was looking forward to that great dialogue beween Frodo, Sam and Faramir: "Hang on. Where are they going? Osgiliath? Eh?". (Actually, I didn't think the portrayal of Faramir was quite as bad as has been made out - he saw in time that Frodo and Sam should carry on their Quest and let the Ring go, despite the consequences for him. I think that this should set up well the scenes between him and Denethor in RotK.)<P>But during the film and after, I began thinking what many on this thread have already expressed. This is an adaptation/interpretation of the book for film and for filmgoers, many (most?) of whom will not have read the book. And on that level, I think it works very well indeed. Only problem is, I was too preoccupied by the discrepancies to fully enjoy what was a fantastic film. So, I'm off to see it again this weekend.<P>But the visualisation! Just as with FotR, I found myself marvelling at how the characters and locations were just I had visualised them when I first read the book some 25 years ago (except perhaps the elves, who I had always imagined as more other-worldly and less 'human like', rather than slightly effeminate with long blonde hair - sorry all you Legolas and Haldir fans out there .)<P>But - Edoras, Helms Deep, Henneth Annun/the Forbidden Pool, the Dead Marshes, the Black Gate - spot on. Just as I had imagined them all those years ago (I can't wait for Minas Tirith in RotK, after the snippets in FotR). And the characters too - except possibly Theoden, who I always imagined as older with a long snowy white beard, for some reason. <P>As for Gollum - well what can I say that hasn't been said already. Sublime acting (for acting it was). The Smeagol/Gollum scene was worth the ticket price itself. And the Ents - I always thought it would be diffcult to portray Treebeard without him just looking like a tree with a face and arms - but they pulled it off. And the Oliphaunt - noone's mentioned the Oliphanut ('though I wouldn't like to be one of the poor b*****s who has to sit in the 'castle' on top).<P>So, these are my thoughts. Sorry if they're a bit rambling. Overall, I have overcome initial disappointment at the changes to rate it as a great film. And I can't wait to see it again.

[Veon]

Overall impression in short:<P>Beautiful, grand, no substance.<P>PJ is advertising the nature of New Zealand and his visual effects company instead of concentrating on telling a story. 30 to 45 minutes could be cut out of the movie without anyone ever noticing it.<P>The New Zealand Board of Tourism sends PJ a big bunch of flowers with a "Thank you!" card attached.<P>Good, but FOTR was much better.<P>Anders<p>[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Veon ]

[LadyElbereth]

Ack! I can't remember if I posted here or not! Oh well, I'm just gonna go ahead and state my opinion anyway.<P>It was a great movie, but there were some parts that I was dissapointed in.<BR>Such as...<BR>1)The elves at Helms Deep<BR>2)Haldir DYING!!<BR>3)Erm, I wish they would've showed Merry and Pippin a teeny tiny bit more.<BR>4)FARAMIR!! I mean that dude is no Faramir (David Wenham's did a good job though).<P>The highlights(for me)in the movie were...<BR>1) Every scene with Gollum in it! He was awesome!<BR>2) The Dead Marshes.That place creeped me out.<BR>3) The fighting scenes!<BR>4) The Ent Moot. It was so cool to see all those Ents!<P>I really liked The Two Towers and I thought PJ did an excellent job but I have to say that I enjoyed The Fellowship of the Ring much much better.<P>~LadyElbereth

[Magician of Nathar]

Everyone seem to think FOTR is better? Well, personally I think TTT is more attractive. FOTR is just too stiff for me. I do realize the movies are an adaption of established novels, but I would hate it if every dialogue is exactly the same. I think movie is a different media from novel. The directors should, and do have more liberty. <BR>I find the movie very beautiful, and way more attractive to non Tolkien fans. I mightily enjoyed the changes, they are more of a flavor. Can't wait to see ROTK!!!!

I think for me, the film was very good, as good as FOTR, but a few of the discrepancies stopped it from being great. The major problems i had were :-<P>Theodens character - Where was the wise old king? The guy on screen didn't need to be posessed by Saruman, he probably would have listened to Grima anyway. And that created a whole other problem. The need for Grima at all. Why does he need to be whispering in theodens ear, if Theoden is posessed? Didn't make sense to me.<P>Helm's Deep - Elves there? I don't think so. It wouldn't have taken more than a couple of lines of dialogue and/or cutaway scenes of elves and dwarves in there own battles to show why they couldn't come. I don't think that's why they were there. I think PJ didn't think the none tolkien audience would buy the trees saving the day. Therefore he needs a new "7th cavalry", which has to be Eomer. Therefore he needs more troops to make a credible defence, and can't just double the size of Rohan's army. <P>There were a few other things that bugged me a little, but they were the major ones. They didn't spoil the film for me, but they pulled me out of the narrative and spoilt the flow for a little while. Faramir was a different story. Until the end i thought he'd changed a little too much, but i now feel they just dragged out his understanding over a longer period of time, which left too little time to show his good side. I feel we will see him in his true light in ROTK, if not the extended version of TTT.<P>Too the people who don't mind the changes :-<P>The reason i have a problem with them, although i must stress again i liked the film and they did not spoil it, just took it down a notch, is the way Tolkien wrote. To me, he didn't create great stories, he created a living breathing world, and then filled in it's history. One of his greatest strengths is attention to detail. In most cases, if a character mentions some part of history, you can find the story in the silmarillion (or elsewhere). It all interconnects, and it all seems real. To me, it's a history as real as our own. that's why i don't like the Chris Tolkien books which show alternative versions of stories, as it spoils the illusion. So when the film deviates too much from the books, i don't think "that's not what he wrote", i think "that's not what happened", or "that's not what he's like". <P>Someone before mentioned Braveheart, and it's the perfect example. It just depends whether you can accept the artistic licence. To me, Braveheart is flawed, because i lose the sense of the world that has been created when i see things that didn't/couldn't happen for the sake of the story. To others, a good story is the key, and the details are less important. Neither view is right or wrong, it's just what's important to us as individuals, and colours the way we view the films.<P>All that remains is to apologise for the length of the post, although i doubt anyone's still reading by now!

[HCIsland]

I was thumbing through reviews at <A HREF="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/reviews.php" TARGET=_blank>Rotten Tomatoes</A> when I came across this comment which to me sums up the main issue I had with TTT.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It can't be easy starting a movie in the middle, staying in the middle, and then ending it in the middle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think the changes that PJ introduced were mostly to address this problem and try to give more of a structure to this story by making the central plot the saving of Rohan. In the end though, I don't think he completely succeeded, mostly because the parallel story with Sam and Frodo kind of clunked under it's own weight in Osgiliath.<P>Don't get me wrong, I really liked this movie and I think Jackson did as good a job as could be expected (I think I gave it 8.5 or 9 on some thread or another), but in the end I don't think it was as strong as FoTR but should likely stand up very well when the three films can be watched together as a single work. <P>As a stand alone movie though, I think a movie goer that is not familiar with the material would get the impression that the LoTR story line pretty much ends up where it started at the beginning of the film. There's a lot going on up on the screen, but not a lot happens.<P>In the end, PJ likely made the right decision going more for the razzle-dazzle slam-bang battle sequences then the emotional impact we saw in Fellowship and we are almost sure to see in RoTK.<P>H.C.

[Lostgaeriel]

Well, I finally saw it for the first time, last nite, alone. I <I>never</I> could get my sister to go with me. And to tell the truth, after seeing the trailers & making-of on TV for the last two months, I was beginning to dread seeing it. I was afraid I wouldn't like it.<P>I didn't. It was horrible. See what <B>hama1</B> said in this thread Dec. 18/02.<P>In fact, I almost walked out when Faramir (or was it his evil twin?) decided to take the Ring.<P>I sobbed myself to sleep last nite - because of a <I>movie</I>, for heaven's sake! That script was a waste of time, money and the talents of all those wonderful actors and crew. It was a once-in-a-lifetime chance and Jackson blew it!<P>I won't see TTT again. I won't buy the DVD. I'll only watch ROTK to see Viggo's performance.<P>

[nPiLL]

i liked the movie, i thought it was a good follow up to the first one. some of the best parts are when the coputer graphics come in, like when treebeard and the treants attacked othenk(think thats how u spell it lol)

[Elvish Hermit]

Overall the movie was okay, but what REALLY ticked me off was the many changes done at Helm's Deep. <BR> There's a reason as to why that battle was fought at a man location: to be fought by men (duh). It's sort of offending what Jackson did, calling in the elves to 'save' the men. It was suppose to be a battle to prove to the elves that there was still strength left in men. That maybe men can help win this war. But nooooooooooooooo PJ brought in the elves, to save man's *** , and to kill Haldir. Very, very wrong in my book.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>to be fought by men (duh)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, men and really nasty trees. <P>H.C.<p>[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Peri]

I'll just say this: It was good but the first was better.

First and foremost I understand that most if not all the people on this forum are devoted Tolkein Fans, but I believe most have been overlcritical of what is in its own right an absolutely outsatnding film. Sure there are some aspects that are a bit galling for a fan. The defamation of Faramir's character being the most obvious in my opinion. What people have to understand is that PJ HAD to make some changes in order to make it into a good film. Also New Line Cinema had an influence on some scenes (such as is explained in the extended DVD commentary of FOTR when Bill leaves before the fellowship enters Moria) that PJ was not overly happy with.<BR>I utterly agree that as a re-incarnation of the book the film is lacking in many places, but what you have to remember is that the basic story is still told beautifully. The characters and the details are so vivid and detailed in the book because tolkein was a genius, but in the end they are mere tools in order to help tell the story of The journey of Frodo and the One Ring From Bag end to Mordor.<BR>The TTT film is my fave of all time, the acting is brilliant and the cinematography is awesome coupled with an excellent soundtrack brilliant special effects and mesmerising scenery The Two Towers as a Film deserves all our appreciation and I would give it a resounding 10/10